ID: aiam4575

Dear Mr. Folino-Nazda: We have received a copy of your letter o December l9, l988, to Commissioner Young of the Food and Drug Administration, forwarded to us by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. You have asked whether the 'vehicle safety device' you described (with samples enclosed) are subject to any restrictions which would prevent importation of the device. The device provides an 'ultrasonic animal warning.' At a speed 'over 30 mph air flow produces a high pitch whistle which animals try to avoid.' It is designed for owner installation on 'bumpers, grills, fenders, mirrors and roofs' of motor vehicles. Because the device is intended solely as an accessory to motor vehicles, it is an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the jurisdiction of this agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to this type of equipment. You should also be aware that if the device's manufacturer ('manufacturer' includes both the maker as well as any importer for resale) or this agency were to determine that the device contains a safety-related defect, importers of this foreign-made device would be required by the Vehicle Safety Act to recall the device and remedy the defect or replace the device without charge. We are returning your samples to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5027

"Dear Mr. Rovtar: This responds to your letter of May 28, 1992, askin for 'a written ruling' that the product you described 'meets current SAE/DOT guidelines.' The product is intended for the vehicle towing trailer market. Currently, lamps on towed vehicles are activated by splicing into the wiring harness of the towing vehicle. Your product eliminates the need for this type of hard wiring. This product 'utilizes photodetectors to read the output of the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps, and in turn activate the lamps of the towed vehicle.' Photodetectors are embedded in suction cups which are attached to the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps. The device is plugged into the cigarette lighter receptacle of the towing vehicle, and the harness of the towed vehicle is plugged into the device. When the stop lamp or turn signals of the towing vehicle are activated, the photodetectors read the light emitted, and the towed vehicle's lamps are activated via the completed circuit. For purposes of this discussion we shall assume that the device is intended for aftermarket distribution. Further, from your description, it appears to be the type of device that is simple enough to be installed by the vehicle owner. The product itself is not directly regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, because it is not replacement equipment intended to replace original equipment. Its installation on a vehicle in use by the vehicle's owner is outside the prohibition contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That prohibition forbids 'manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses' from 'rendering inoperative, in whole or in part,' mandated safety equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps. Were the device installed by a person in these categories we would be concerned that the addition of the suction cups would partially obscure the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps and, thus, render them 'partially inoperative' within the meaning of the prohibition. That concern is not lessened by the fact that the device may be installed by a person not covered by the prohibition, such as the owner of the towing vehicle. However, as a practical matter, we realize that the safety impact may be minimal since the presence of the trailer will obscure the lamps on the towing vehicle to which the suction cups are applied. We cannot advise you on whether the product meets SAE requirements. The legality of the use of equipment that is not regulated by NHTSA is determinable under the laws of States where the towing-towed vehicle combinations are operated. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4367

Dear Mr. Martin: This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1987, concerning th regulations applicable to buses used by State Schools to transport children to non-school related activities. You have asked us to address this question for each type of State School, some of which are not 'schools' at all, and for public and private schools generally.; In beginning my answer, I want to stress the distinction between th State and Federal regulation of school buses. The question of what bus to use for a particular trip is a question of State regulation. Although there are Federal guidelines for school bus use, these are not binding on the States and will not be discussed in this letter. The question of what bus may be sold for transporting children is a matter of Federal regulation. It is this question that we can answer.; A 'school bus' is defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act in terms of its *anticipated* use. A bus is thus a 'school bus if the Secretary of Transportation determines it is; >>>likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transportin primary, preprimary or secondary school students to or from schools or events related to such schools.<<<; A person who sells a new bus that will be 'significantly used' for th purposes listed in the school bus definition must ensure that the bus meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Selling a nonconforming bus for school bus use will subject the seller to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each vehicle and up to $800,000 for a related series of violations. The question of the bus's use is thus of considerable consequence both to the seller and to the buyer.; As you describe the State Schools in Texas, each type of Schoo provides 24-hour residential care for children but offers a differing degree of educational service. One type is certified as a school district and provides instruction on campus, a second type is certified as a school district but offers no instruction, and a third is neither classified nor equipped for instruction. In purchasing a new bus for any of the three types of State School, you would need to ask the same question: Is the bus going to be 'significantly used' to transport students to and from school or school-related events? If it will be used in this fashion, it will have to be certified as conforming to the school bus safety standards.; I can visualize circumstances under which a bus purchased for any o the three types of State School would have to be certified. The first type is a bona-fide school, so that any use of a bus to transport children to or from the School would be a trip 'to or from' school within the school bus definition of the Vehicle Safety Act. We expect that any new bus sold for use in this type of School would be certified as a school bus.; The second type of State School, though certified as a school district offers no instruction. We would not consider either this type or the third type to be a 'school,' which we define as an institution for the instruction of children at the preprimary, primary, or secondary level. A new bus purchased for the use of one of these types of State Schools, and used for no other school transportation, would not have to be certified as a school bus. However, if the bus were to be purchased for the purpose of transporting children from the State School to local public or parochial schools on a regular basis, we would consider it to be 'significantly used' for that purpose, even though it might also be used for other transportation unrelated to school.; A new bus sold for the use of a bona fide school, whether public o private, will almost invariably be required to be certified. Although a bus might conceivably be purchased by a school for the sole use of school employees, such a restriction would be rare. We would expect that virtually all buses purchased by a school would be required to be certified to the school bus standards.; Since the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest vehicl for children, we strongly endorse the use of a certified bus to transport children for any purpose, whether or not school-related. However, our regulatory authority extends only to the manufacture and sale of new buses, not to their use for a particular trip. For those trips for which a school considers using a noncertified bus, we suggest that you review the Texas regulations on the use of school buses.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you hav further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht69-1.42

DATE: 06/17/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Gruman Allied Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to your letter dated April 9, 1969, addressed to Robert M. O'Mahoney, which has been referred to this Bureau.

The location you have selected on the windshield wiper motor bracket, as shown in your enclosed drawing number 69028, sheet 2, is approved as an alternative to the specified locations. We note, however, that you intend to use binding-head screws as your method of attachment. This method does not appear to fulfill the requirements of permanency and destruction on removal in section 367.4(b) of the Certification Regulations, 49 CFR Part 367.

As issued January 24, 1969 (34 F.R. 1148) the above section reads: "The label shall be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without the use of tools and without destroying it." A proposal issued on April 29, 1969 (34 F.R. 7032) would amend the section to read: "The label shall be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying it." The requirements of permanency and destruction on removal remain in both versions.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

ID: GF005229-2

[ ]

Dear [ ]

This responds to your letter asking whether a key locking system, which includes an engine control module immobilizer, could be used to meet the requirements of S4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 114, Theft Protection. More specifically, you asked whether such a system would meet the requirements of S4.2 by (a) preventing normal activation of the vehicles engine by removal of the key, and (b) preventing vehicle forward self-mobility by the presence of the immobilizer. As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.

Before I address your question, I note that you requested confidential treatment for the identity of your company and for yourself, as well as for additional information provided in your letter. You also provided a redacted version of your letter. I agree to keep your name and the name of your company confidential. All information in bold brackets [      ] in our letter will be kept confidential. The redacted version of your letter will be made public. We will send a separate letter providing a complete response to your request for confidentiality.

SECTION S4.2

FMVSS No. 114 specifies requirements for theft protection to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle. S4.2 of the standard specifies:

Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents:

(a) The normal activation of the vehicles engine or motor; and

(b) Either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.

As you noted in your letter, "self-mobility" is not defined in the standard. Manufacturers have typically prevented forward self-mobility by installing transmission lever locks.

YOUR SYSTEM

Your vehicle features an engine control module immobilizer system that uses a multi-level coding process (hash code), which differentiates between a constant key code and a continuously varying authorization code.

First, for normal vehicle activation, an operator must insert the properly coded electronic key into the electronic ignition lock. After insertion, a 2-way data exchange takes place for positive verification of the drive authorization. The engine can be started only after the positive verification occurs.

Second, if a key without the proper electronic code is used, or an attempt is made to bypass the electronic ignition lock in order to start the vehicle through other means (e.g. , through "hot-wiring" of the vehicle), the immobilizer will lock out the engine control module effectively preventing engine operation.

You believe that the presence of this engine control module immobilizer prevents forward self-mobility in the context of S4.2(b) because without engine operation, the vehicle is incapable of moving forward under its own power.

DISCUSSION

We agree that the type of system you describe would meet the requirements of S4.2(a) because it prevents normal activation of the vehicles engine when the key is removed. We also agree that the type of system you describe would meet the requirements of S4.2(b) because engine control module immobilizer prevents vehicle forward self-mobility when the key is removed.

As you discussed in your letter, the two provisions of S4.2 were intended to reduce unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle in different ways. Provision (a) was intended to prevent unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle by requiring that the vehicle could not be started without the key. Provision (b) was intended to further impede unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle by preventing vehicle operation outside the normal activation method. That is, if an attempt were made to circumvent the ignition lock (through "hot-wiring," for example), another device would prevent unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle.

We note that in promulgating FMVSS No. 114, the agency expressed concern about car thieves who could bypass the ignition lock. In response to this concern, the agency decided to require a device, which would prevent either self-mobility or steering even if the ignition lock were bypassed (see 33 FR 4471, April 27, 1968).

The engine control module immobilizer described in your letter satisfies the requirements of S4.2(b) because it locks out the engine control module if an attempt is made to start the vehicle without the correct key or to bypass the electronic ignition system. When the engine control module is locked, the vehicle is not capable of forward self-mobility because it is incapable of moving forward under its own power.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:114
d.9/24/04

ID: toyota

Mr. Yaichi Oishi
General Manager
Government Affairs Division
Toyota Technical Center, USA, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Oishi:

This responds to your December 22, 1997 letter concerning the telltale requirement for air bag retrofit on-off switches adopted in 49 CFR Part 595 by a November 21, 1997 final rule (62 FR 62406). You ask whether you may use a telltale design which contains the required words "DRIVER AIR BAG OFF" and "PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF," but in a different word order.

Part 595.5(b)(3)(ii)(B) states that "the telltale for an air bag shall have the identifying words "DRIVER AIR BAG OFF" or "PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF" as appropriate, on the telltale or within 25 mm of the telltale."

You state that your proposed design would consist of three sections: a top section in which the word "AIRBAG" will be centrally located and illuminated in green, a middle portion which will have two telltales each consisting of the word "OFF" which would be illuminated when an air bag had been deactivated by the on-off switch, and a bottom portion consisting of the words "Driver" or "Passenger" in white lettering and under the appropriate telltale. You do not state whether the words "AIRBAG", "Driver" and "Passenger" will all be within 25 mm of their respective telltales.

The proposed design contains all of the words required in the final rule, although in a different order. NHTSA generally requires the exact wording as set forth in the regulatory text where warning labels are concerned. The Agency is concerned that allowing significant flexibility in warning label designs could lead to consumer confusion as to the meaning of the warning label. Thus, while there may be some flexibility regarding the size and format of lettering, depending on the specific regulatory text, the word order generally cannot be changed.

Nevertheless, NHTSA has decided to interpret Part 595 more broadly in this instance in light of several factors. First, it believes the telltale at issue is easily understandable. Second, the agency does not wish to unduly delay the introduction of a retrofit on-off switch. However, the agency wishes to make it clear that its opinion concerning diversion from exact word order is limited to this interpretation request and should not be construed as precedent for how we would interpret other requirements in this or other regulations. This includes the requirement that the words "AIRBAG", "Driver" and "Passenger" be within 25mm of the words "OFF" which serve as the telltale.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202)366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack,
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:595
d.1/20/98

ID: 86-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Benjamin R. Jackson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 4, 1986 Mr. Benjamin R. Jackson Executive Director Automobile Importers Compliance Association 1607 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 Dear Mr. Jackson: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you on vehicles subject to the theft prevention standard to have the required markings entirely within the target area specified for the part by the original manufacturer of the vehicle. You stated that it was possible that target areas specified by the original manufacturer might be suitable for marking by means of labels, but not suitable for marking by means of inscription. If this situation were to occur, you asked if Part 541 could be interpreted to permit manufacturers that must mark by means of inscription to place those markings outside the target area designated by the original manufacturer. Part 541 cannot be so interpreted. In the case of inscribed markings, 541(d)(2)(iii) specifies that the required markings shall be "placed entirely within the target area specified by the original manufacturer for that part." This requirement applies to all markings inscribed for the purposes of Part 541, whether done by an original manufacturer or a direct importer. The policy bases underlying this requirement were explained at length in the preamble to the final rule establishing Part 541. See 50 FR 43166, at 43172, October 24, 1985. First, it is important that all parts be marked in the same target area so that investigators will know exactly where to look on a part for the required marking. The investigator would be alerted to possible suspicious activity if the marking were outside the target area. Second, the different target areas for original equipment and replacement parts marking are intended to ensure that there will be an adequate separation between the areas where the different types of parts will be marked. This will ensure that a thief cannot obliterate an original equipment part marking and affix a counterfeit replacement part marking directly over the area where the original equipment part marking was located. Both of these purposes would be undercut if original manufacturers and direct importers were allowed to designate different target areas for marking vehicles in the same line, Accordingly, Part 541 explicitly requires only one target area for the required marking on each part of a covered line. We do not believe that your concern about inscribing markings on curved surfaces in well-founded. The agency knows of a number of means of inscribing numbers on curved surfaces that would permit direct importers to mark those surfaces within the $15 cost limit set forth in section 604(a)(2) of the Cost Savings Act. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht68-3.4

DATE: 10/03/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Deputy Chief Experimental

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 23, 1965, to Dr. William Haddon, Jr., concerning windshield washers.

Based upon the information you provided, your annually operated windshield washer system appears to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You state your washer system will deliver the required 15 cc of fluid to windshiell (as specified in paragraph 2.11 of SAB Recommended Practice J942, November 1965) within a period of 3 seconds or less (as specified in paragraph 4.4.2(b) of J942). You also state your manual system will meet the washer system capability requirements of paragraph 3.1 and the durability requirements of paragraph 3.4 of J942.

Apparently your concern is that your annually operated system will not deliver 15 cc of fluid per stroke. However, if you can provide the required 15 cc of fluid by using additional strokes within a 3 second period and if this type of operation will clear 75% of the effective wipe pattern within 10 cycles, you meet the performance requirements we consider necessary for highway safety.

ID: nht70-2.25

DATE: 09/11/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Tanaka and Walders

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of July 27, 1970 to the National Highway Safety Bureau requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

You are correct in your statement that no formal petition for rule making action is necessary for tire and rim combination cited within the references of S3 of Standard No. 109.

Concerning your question on "approval equivalent rim", we offer the following. The policy of the Bureau in 1967 at the time of the promulgation of Standards No. 109 and No. 110 was to give a "blanket" approval of all rims cited within the references. From that time on however, all new tire and rim combinations had to be approved by the Bureau. After the tire and rim combination was approved then it was listed within Table I, Appendix A of Standard No. 110.

Standards No. 109 and No. 110 do not have requirements for rim contours. Our standards only specify the flange letter-code and width for a particular rim designation. Therefore, any request to change a rim dimension of an existing rim does not require a formal action by this Bureau.

ID: 11608DRN

D. W. Goonewardene, Acting Chief Engineer
Audit & Safety Investigations Section
Federal Office of Road Safety, GPO Box 594
Department of Transport
Canberra ACT 2601
AUSTRALIA

Dear Mr. Goonewardene:

This responds to your letter to Mr. James Hackney of NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 122 Motorcycle brakes. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your questions are answered below.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Title 49 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

You first asked whether test procedures at S7.6.1, S7.6.3, S7.10.1, and S7.10.2 that specify stops "from 30 mph at 10 to 11 feet per second per second (fpsps) for each stop" mean "an average deceleration for the stop or maintaining the deceleration throughout the test." You also asked, if the procedure is to maintain the deceleration, "what is the allowable time period from the beginning and towards the end of the test that may be excluded from the requirement that the deceleration must be within the specified range or is the approach in S7.6.2 (which requires attaining the required deceleration as quickly as possible and maintaining this deceleration for at least 3/4 of the stopping distance) used?"

We interpret the specification that stops be made "from 30 mph at 10 to 11 feet per second per second (fpsps) for each stop" as referring to maintaining the deceleration within that range throughout the stop, i.e., not as an average. The approach in S7.6.2, which is for higher speed/higher deceleration stops, does not apply to these other sections. As a practical matter, of course, there is a momentary period of time needed at the beginning of the stops to attain the specified deceleration, and possibly a momentary period at the very end of the stops that will be outside the specified range.

You also asked, "if some variation from the specified deceleration occurs, are there any conditions placed on when the maximum pedal/lever forces should be measured (e.g., only when the deceleration is within the specified limits)?" As indicated above, the specified deceleration should be maintained throughout each stop. We would look at the entire stop to determine maximum pedal/lever forces.

I am enclosing for your information a copy our Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 122, prepared by our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. The purpose and application of the procedure is explained at the beginning of the document.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further legal questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366- 3820. If you have technical questions, including ones about the enclosed Laboratory Test Procedure, please contact Luke Loy of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at (202) 366-5308 (FAX (202) 366-1024).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:122 d:4/24/96